Spending more to save money

Lina Joana wrote:

Barbara Simoes wrote:I, too, don't spend beyond what I have--no debt. I own the house and property outright, have a healthy retirement fund, which I started back in my 20's or 30's, and yet, my credit is considered barely "fair" because I don't use credit.  That whole system is crazy.  I really resent that someone who is responsible with money is penalized because of it!

But you are only penalized if you need to take on debt, right? Otherwise, your credit score doesn’t matter. If you don’t need to borrow, you are ahead of the game.
I agree with you that it is a crazy system… but when it comes to borrowing money from strangers, I can’t think of a better one. If a borrower has no history of borrowing, how do I asses trustworthiness?

I agree the system is kind of nuts. I keep a big fat line of credit that I'll never use (except maybe in an emergency) just to keep my "credit utilization ratio" very low -- the credit score system loves this.

The "trustworthiness" aspect of a credit score has gone far beyond simple borrowing. It now affects an individual's insurance rates, employability, and heaven knows what other shenanigans. Like it or not, it is a thing that needs managing.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:

Lina Joana wrote:

Barbara Simoes wrote:I, too, don't spend beyond what I have--no debt. I own the house and property outright, have a healthy retirement fund, which I started back in my 20's or 30's, and yet, my credit is considered barely "fair" because I don't use credit.  That whole system is crazy.  I really resent that someone who is responsible with money is penalized because of it!

But you are only penalized if you need to take on debt, right? Otherwise, your credit score doesn’t matter. If you don’t need to borrow, you are ahead of the game.
I agree with you that it is a crazy system… but when it comes to borrowing money from strangers, I can’t think of a better one. If a borrower has no history of borrowing, how do I asses trustworthiness?

I agree the system is kind of nuts. I keep a big fat line of credit that I'll never use (except maybe in an emergency) just to keep my "credit utilization ratio" very low -- the credit score system loves this.

The "trustworthiness" aspect of a credit score has gone far beyond simple borrowing. It now affects an individual's insurance rates, employability, and heaven knows what other shenanigans. Like it or not, it is a thing that needs managing.

I do not have a credit score at all (not good and not bad, just what is known as undeterminable), and I don't find credit score a big deterrence. You can mitigate any higher costs like insurance by paying for the insurance once per year instead of quarterly or monthly. And a lot of bills can be paid once per year with some even paying you interest. Other aspects you can simply explain, like employability. I was right up front with my employer, telling them when they hired me that I had no credit score and why (I paid everything with cash and have no debts) which made me stand out in a good way, and not bad. I am not sure if it matters or not, but I work for one of the largest companies in the world with 500,000 employees too.

In the end it comes down to this: the world wants cash and very few people have it. If you have cash, and don't use credit, you have the ultimate in negotiating power.

I cannot think of one thing I pay more for because I don't have a credit score, but I can think of about ten ways I save by always using cash.

As I said earlier, the only way to win with credit is just not play.

Cécile Stelzer Johnson wrote:We have a society where consumerism and planned obsolescence are king. The old adage "you get what you pay for" is partially at play here: You do not *always* get what you are paying for, even when you spend a lot: Many of us have made purchases thinking that "It would last longer" and got disappointed.

Story of my life! It's so hard these days to buy for longevity, and even brands that claim to be "heirloom quality" or have a reputation for reliability have left me disappointed.

More and more, these are produced in the exact same factories that produce the cheap version, and skimp on the longevity.

Before I switched to cast iron skillets, I bought a very expensive teflon-free fancy ceramic non-stick skillet. And it functioned optimally for less than two years, and then it started sticking. All the signs (good reviews, recommandations from chefs, price point) indicated that it should have been a "forever" purchase. Le Creuset dutch ovens are sort of the same to me: no, the enamel doesn't last forever, and they will shatter easily if dropped. Give me cast iron that can take open fire and a steel wool scouring pad any day instead!

My expensive merino wool hiking tee did not withstand the friction of a backpack and was full of holes within a few years. And yet, I have an H&M fast fashion seersucker shirt that I got second-hand at least eight years ago, and that is surviving everything I throw at it (including the same travel conditions as the merino tee)

I could go on and on... the German engineered dishwasher, the fancy wood cutting board that started splintering...

These situations always frustrate me so much because I want to buy items that will outlast me, but there are few reliable ways to insure that, and even brands that have been reliable in the past will change their practices.

My strategy these days is to buy second hand as much as I can. The stuff that pills/yellows/chips early is evident at that point. And if I make a mistake, at least I've just carried this item to its inevitable death rather than used up new resources for it, and I haven't paid a fortune for it.

I agree, Kena

Second hand might even be seventh hand or beyond.  It’s not new.  It has been through its break in period.  If it was going to fail early in its life, it has already done so.

It’s kind of like a post manufacture quality control process!

I wonder if there is going to be a day of reckoning on this?

I know Maytag now makes a washing machine with no computer chip boards inside it. It is all solid state. That should stand up over time I would think?

It just is so frustrating. I can repair almost anything, and with the internet get even the most obscure parts, but time is where I lack. I am on call 24/7/365 as I work alone most of the time and have to keep a 50 million dollar plant operational most days by myself.

But with Maine anyway having NO recycling except for metal products, it just seems so wasteful for society to continue this way.

I worked at a recycling facility of sorts, and in taking in garbage, they said every month $65,000 in just thrown away change was lost from society. In a year, 2 million in precious metals was recovered from jewelry being tossed away. I cannot imagine the platinum, gold, silver and palladium that was lost from electronic devices. It just seems we have tipped over the precipice of being unsustainable, yet in the state of Maine, every ton of garbage is now buried at only two landfills. I have been to one and it was staggeringly tall: you could see both Mt Katahdin and Mount Washington; one of few places you can in Maine in one spot.

With one of my first pay packets, I spend it all on a good tweed jacket. It lasted me about 30 years, then it got too small when I put on weight. But still good.

Madeleine Innocent wrote:With one of my first pay packets, I spend it all on a good tweed jacket.

With one of the first checks from my first "real adult" job I bought myself a really nice leather wallet. 30 years later it's a bit dinged at the corners but I still use it and still love it, and intend to keep using it til I don't need a wallet anymore!

Indeed. The Firehose pants I bought from Duluth Trading Company 20 years ago have begun to get frayed at the bottom.  The 4 year old Alaskan Hardgear pants from Duluth still look new.

On the flip side, my go to jacket cost less than $20at a truck stop in Sikeston Mo. It is in great condition as well.